In article ,
Channel Jumper wrote:

Ringo's are nothing more then a over glorified dummy load..

I am sure Dr Reynolds of the University of Washington School of
Electrical Engineering, who designed that antenna for AEA, would
take considerable disagreement, with the above. This design was
Extensively Tested on the UofW's Antenna Range, up on Pigeon Hill, West
Seattle, Washington, which was donated to the UoW, after the Army was
finished with the old Army Communications System site, post WWII.

Channel Jumper sure is a Morooon (Bugs Bunny Definition) and has no
relevant Historical Knowledge.....

Me One who actually KNOEWS the relevant FACTS....

"Me" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Channel Jumper wrote:

Ringo's are nothing more then a over glorified dummy load..

I am sure Dr Reynolds of the University of Washington School of
Electrical Engineering, who designed that antenna for AEA, would
take considerable disagreement, with the above. This design was
Extensively Tested on the UofW's Antenna Range, up on Pigeon Hill, West
Seattle, Washington, which was donated to the UoW, after the Army was
finished with the old Army Communications System site, post WWII.

Channel Jumper sure is a Morooon (Bugs Bunny Definition) and has no
relevant Historical Knowledge.....

Me One who actually KNOEWS the relevant FACTS....

Are you sure AEA had an antenna called Ringo ?

Cushcraft is the only major company I knew of that produced an antenna
called Ringo.

AEA did have several other antennas, the Isopole being one for 2 meters and
some other frequencies.

The origional Ringo for 2 meters was not a very good antenna for most. It
worked , but tended to shoot much of the signal off at high angles. Fine if
in a low area, not so good for the higher areas.
CC also produced some 11 element beams that were a very poor antenna for the
size. I compaired a couple of them with a home built quagi out of the ARRL
handbook and the 8 element quagi was much beter than the 11 element CC.

de KU4PT

On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 10:53:00 -0900, Me wrote:

In article ,
Channel Jumper wrote:

Ringo's are nothing more then a over glorified dummy load..

I am sure Dr Reynolds of the University of Washington School of
Electrical Engineering, who designed that antenna for AEA, would
take considerable disagreement, with the above. This design was
Extensively Tested on the UofW's Antenna Range, up on Pigeon Hill, West
Seattle, Washington, which was donated to the UoW, after the Army was
finished with the old Army Communications System site, post WWII.

Not AEA, but for Cushcraft.

Obituary:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19920205&slug=1474034
I don't believe Dr Reynolds designed the Ringo Ranger for Cushcraft
(Now MFJ). The MFJ catalog page claims the Ringo Ranger II was
designed by Lester A. Cushman, W1BX(sk)
http://www.cushcraftamateur.com/Product.php?productid=AR-2
Dr Reynolds did write an article "The 5/8-Wavelength Antenna Mystique"
for the ARRL Antenna Compendium, Volume 1 Pg 101-106, (that seems to
have disappeared from my shelf), which may have created some
confusion.

My take on the Ringo Ranger is that it's a tolerable design, but not
the way it's being built. I've seen far too many cracked SO-239 like
connectors, corroded adjustment screws and elements, crumbling
insulators, crushed mounting tubes, etc. It's major advantage is that
without a molded base transformer, this 5/8 wave or (0.64 wave)
antenna can be cheaply built, and that tunes a tolerable wide
frequency range. Were it built mechanically better, I'm sure it would
have had a better reputation. That lack of a commercial equivalent
also offers a clue as to its quality.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Saturday, February 9, 2013 3:37:26 PM UTC-6, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Dr Reynolds did write an article "The 5/8-Wavelength Antenna Mystique"

for the ARRL Antenna Compendium, Volume 1 Pg 101-106, (that seems to

have disappeared from my shelf), which may have created some

confusion.



My take on the Ringo Ranger is that it's a tolerable design, but not

the way it's being built.

I think they were OK for a simple and fairly cheap design, but
the Ringo Ranger 2 was a much better antenna than the regular
Ringo Ranger without the lower decoupling section.
I picked up a Ringo Ranger free years ago, and made my own radial
set which copied the commercial Ringo Ranger 2 design.

I tested it without the section, and with, and there was a huge
difference in the pattern. I'm talking in the multi S units range
with the local low angle signals I was testing with.
So there was obviously a large amount of skewing without the
decoupling section. With it, it was not a bad antenna at all,
and fairly low impact visually.

Reynolds was involved with AEA, and was behind the design of
the Isopoles, and other marine type whips they sold.
The Isopole was slightly superior to the Ringo Ranger 2, mainly
because it had superior decoupling with it's cones, vs the RR2
using a length of feedline, and a set of radials.
But to me, the Isopole was kind of ugly.. Like having a ballistic
missile on the house.. lol.. But it was the best of the dual
5/8 wave verticals when it came to performance.

wrote in message
...

My take on the Ringo Ranger is that it's a tolerable design, but not

the way it's being built.

I think they were OK for a simple and fairly cheap design, but
the Ringo Ranger 2 was a much better antenna than the regular
Ringo Ranger without the lower decoupling section.
I picked up a Ringo Ranger free years ago, and made my own radial
set which copied the commercial Ringo Ranger 2 design.

I tested it without the section, and with, and there was a huge
difference in the pattern. I'm talking in the multi S units range
with the local low angle signals I was testing with.
So there was obviously a large amount of skewing without the
decoupling section. With it, it was not a bad antenna at all,
and fairly low impact visually.


When the lower radials were added the Ringo was suspose to work much beter.
By that time, the Ringo had fallen out of favor around here so I do not know
how well they worked. Main thing is that adding the radials defeated the
purpose of the antenna, which was to eliminate the radials.

On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 00:02:51 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Saturday, February 9, 2013 3:37:26 PM UTC-6, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Dr Reynolds did write an article "The 5/8-Wavelength Antenna Mystique"
for the ARRL Antenna Compendium, Volume 1 Pg 101-106, (that seems to
have disappeared from my shelf), which may have created some
confusion.

My take on the Ringo Ranger is that it's a tolerable design, but not
the way it's being built.

I think they were OK for a simple and fairly cheap design, but
the Ringo Ranger 2 was a much better antenna than the regular
Ringo Ranger without the lower decoupling section.
I picked up a Ringo Ranger free years ago, and made my own radial
set which copied the commercial Ringo Ranger 2 design.

I tested it without the section, and with, and there was a huge
difference in the pattern. I'm talking in the multi S units range
with the local low angle signals I was testing with.
So there was obviously a large amount of skewing without the
decoupling section. With it, it was not a bad antenna at all,
and fairly low impact visually.

Did you perhaps mount the antenna over a metal roof or on a tower side
arm? Without the decoupling section, the ground under the antenna
will cause pattern uptilt.

Reynolds was involved with AEA, and was behind the design of
the Isopoles, and other marine type whips they sold.
The Isopole was slightly superior to the Ringo Ranger 2, mainly
because it had superior decoupling with it's cones, vs the RR2
using a length of feedline, and a set of radials.
But to me, the Isopole was kind of ugly.. Like having a ballistic
missile on the house.. lol.. But it was the best of the dual
5/8 wave verticals when it came to performance.

Thanks. That explains a few things. Incidentally, my rule "The
uglier the antenna, the better it works" was originally based on the
isopole antenna.

I had the displeasure of going through a variety of antennas on our
radio club VHF repeater (K6BJ) about 10 years ago. We started with a
Cushcraft something (forgot the model number). After pouring water
out of the insides, I decided to replace it. The first attempt was a
Cushcraft AR2 Ring Ranger that was previously used as a backup
antenna. It exhibited all the mechanical problems I previously
itemized. The corrosion also generated intermod. After several other
failed antenna tests, I settled on an a Diamond F22a, which has been
in service since about 1997 without any problems. A second F22a was
installed at our other repeater (KI6EH) with similar good results. The
F22a is stainless and fiberglass, as opposed to the Ringo aluminum and
galvanized steel. For UHF, we installed a Diamond X-50.
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com/k6bj/K6BJ%20Repeater/slides/Antennas.html

I recently inherited a very used VHF isopole antenna, which I haven't
tried yet. It's going to need extensive cleaning before installation.
I agree that the cones do look rather strange. There are commercial
antennas, with a similar design that use cylindrical tubing as
decoupling sleeves, which are functionally identical and far less
strange looking.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

For the original question.
All the in production dual band antennas are going to be fairly comparable, so pick the one that you can afford. The more gain it may have (within reason) the better off you are. I'll add the Comet line of dual band antennas in the rest of the opinions already expressed. Are they 'better' than all the rest? I haven't the slightest clue, but the ones I have are certainly comparable.

As for a monitoring antenna, since you've got a 50 foot tower, run a wire antenna off of it. Cheap, variable length possibilities, and they tend to work. If it's strictly for monitoring, just run a wire as long as possible and end feed it. Will be good for transmitting? That's not likely without a lot of effort, but it'll 'listen' real well. And it's cheap.
There is no such thing as a 'do it all well' antenna. They are about like all the other "one size fit's all" thingys, no they don't.
And probably the most profound argument you can be given is that it's VERY doubtful if you only have one antenna for anything. Or one antenna for very long...
- 'Doc